Examining jurors' discursive exchanges related to mitigating factors during capital jury deliberations.
Item
-
Title
-
Examining jurors' discursive exchanges related to mitigating factors during capital jury deliberations.
-
Identifier
-
AAI3169896
-
identifier
-
3169896
-
Creator
-
Cassar, Desiree.
-
Contributor
-
Adviser: Michelle Fine
-
Date
-
2005
-
Language
-
English
-
Publisher
-
City University of New York.
-
Subject
-
Psychology, Social | Law
-
Abstract
-
This dissertation investigates the extent to which capital juries consider mitigating factors during their sentencing deliberations, and the extent to which capital jurors assist each other with the sentencing task. This research is a secondary analysis of data collected by Patry (2001), a fully-crossed 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 experiment investigating the effects of sentencing instructions on capital jury decision making. The case stimulus was based on Buchanan v. Aneglone (1998). Trial manipulations included the presence or absence of a history of emotional abuse, heinousness of the crime, prior criminal record, pattern or revised Virginia sentencing instructions, which included or not, a list of case specific mitigators. In the present research, the videotaped deliberations of 108 mock juries (623 mock jurors) from Patry (2001) were transcribed. Juror statements were coded according to a coding scheme designed to capture the extent to which jurors discussed mitigators, converted mitigators into aggravators and assisted fellow jurors in the sentencing task. History of emotional abuse and the list of case specific mitigators did not increase the frequency with which juries discussed mitigators. Dispositional mitigators were discussed more frequently in a manner disfavoring the defendant. Aggravators were discussed with the same frequency when heinousness and prior criminal record were present and absent. Conversion of mitigators into aggravators accounted for less than 1% of all statements. Discussion of inconsistency of mitigators was significantly correlated with the discussion of disfavoring dispositional mitigators. Juror assistance accounted for less than 1% of all coded statements. Juror understanding of instructions and mitigation was coded significantly more often in the revised instruction condition than in the pattern instruction condition. Heinousness of the crime was a reliable predictor of jury sentences. The implications are significant for capital jury decision making and for the legal system in its pursuit of constitutional death penalty statutes.
-
Type
-
dissertation
-
Source
-
PQT Legacy CUNY.xlsx
-
degree
-
Ph.D.
